Samuel Verschelde a écrit :
Le samedi 11 juin 2011 18:01:54, Maarten Vanraes a écrit : > Op zaterdag 11 juni 2011 16:55:00 schreef Samuel Verschelde: > > Le samedi 11 juin 2011 14:26:19, Maarten Vanraes a écrit : > > > Op zaterdag 11 juni 2011 13:14:29 schreef Samuel Verschelde: > > > > Le samedi 11 juin 2011 12:06:55, Christiaan Welvaart a écrit : > > > > > On Fri, 10 Jun 2011, Michael Scherer wrote: > > > > > > We can agree that everybody want something newer for some rpms, > > > > > > but few people want everything to be newer ( ie, now one run > > > > > > backports as a update media, I think ). So as much as I am > > > > > > against asking to users questions, we must show them the choice > > > > > > somewhere, in a non obstrusive way. > > > > > > > > > > Maybe, but how would be "support" this? We must be able to > > > > > reproduce a reported problem. This becomes complicated when we > > > > > don't know what is installed on the user's system. A guideline for > > > > > bug reporters is (or should be) "make sure you installed the > > > > > latest updates". What would be the equivalent for backports? I'm > > > > > afraid it should be "if you installed any backports, make sure you > > > > > installed all backports that are relevant for your system". If > > > > > someone has a problem with any other combination, the bug report > > > > > might be rejected. How would QA even work when only selected > > > > > packages are upgraded from backports, or integration testing: > > > > > integration with what? > > > > > > > > > > So the only combinations we can support are: > > > > > - release + updates > > > > > - release + updates + backports > > > > > > > > > > More practical: for mga1 I have a VM that I can keep updated. For > > > > > mga1 backports I can install another VM with backports enabled. But > > > > > for bugs reported with only selected backports installed I suppose > > > > > I would have to install a new VM with mga1, update it, and install > > > > > only those backports - > > > > > > > > > > for each bug report. But maybe I'm missing something, please > > > > > explain. > > (: > > > > If we suppose that either updates or backports are supported (with a > > > > support level to be defined), the situation is simpler to me : a > > > > good backport must work with all its dependencies coming from > > > > updates or release OR it must explicitly require higher versions, > > > > found only in the backports media and so automatically pulled. > > > > > > > > So I don't think that having picked up only certain backported > > > > packages is a problem for the maintainer's support. Maybe I > > > > over-simplified the situation, but I don't think it will be as > > > > complex as you say. > > > > > > > > Samuel > > > > > > imho this creates more work for packagers or qa team to support > > > backports, i'm not really in favor of this solution > > > > So it someone has a problem with a package you backported and reports it > > in bugzilla, you'll answer "not supported" and close the door ? Then we > > have not a single chance to have users accept to use backports rather > > than ask for a rolling release (supposing that we want to stay with > > stable releases model, which hasn't been decided yet).
Not only would users tend to avoid backports, they would tend to avoid Mageia after a bad experience.
> > In my opinion, a backport must be either supported or not exist. Even in > > Mandriva, where everybody keep saying "backports ain't supported", > > usually people try to solve the problems caused by backports. > > > > However, the level of support can be different between backports and > > updates, as I said in my previous message. The differences are yet to > > define, but here are some I see : > > - when a critical bug in a backport exists, you can simply update to a > > newer version and see if it's solved > > - if the program already is in its the latest version and has an upstream > > bug, you can answer "report the bug upstream" and stop there until > > upstream solves the bug. For packages in release or updates, ideally you > > have to try to help fixing it or work it around because the bug is > > considered part of the whole distribution.
Exactly. Backports supported, but to a lesser degree.
> > Best regards > > > > Samuel > > What about security fixes? if there's 1 version in release and 10 in > backports? do the older backported packages have to be securitypatched? > > imho not supported backports means that if backports has an issue, try a > newer backports... > > imho that is a good level, that doesn't require much effort. I think we agree, because if we follow the Mandriva way, upload of a new backport for a given package removes the old one if there is one. So at a given time, you only have to support the package in release or updates + 0 or 1 backport. Samuel
I think that this is a good approach to the issue. -- André
